Are financial incentives more effective than health campaigns to quit smoking? A community-randomised smoking cessation trial in Denmark
Pisinger, Charlotta ; Toxværd, Cecilie Goltermann and Rasmussen, Mette LU
(2022)
In Preventive Medicine
154.
- Abstract
The aim of this community-randomised smoking cessation (SC) trial was to investigate both recruitment and SC-rates in three municipalities offering financial incentives (FIM) to smokers who stop smoking when attending a municipal SC-program and compare these with three municipalities investing in a campaign (CAM) that should encourage smokers to use the SC-program. Furthermore, in a non-randomised matched control design we investigated whether there was a difference in recruitment and SC-rates in the three FIM and the three CAM, comparing each with three matched control municipalities (MCM). Each municipality received approx. $16,000. The FIM rewarded persons who were abstinent when attending the municipal SC-program. The CAM spent the... (More)
The aim of this community-randomised smoking cessation (SC) trial was to investigate both recruitment and SC-rates in three municipalities offering financial incentives (FIM) to smokers who stop smoking when attending a municipal SC-program and compare these with three municipalities investing in a campaign (CAM) that should encourage smokers to use the SC-program. Furthermore, in a non-randomised matched control design we investigated whether there was a difference in recruitment and SC-rates in the three FIM and the three CAM, comparing each with three matched control municipalities (MCM). Each municipality received approx. $16,000. The FIM rewarded persons who were abstinent when attending the municipal SC-program. The CAM spent the money on a campaign recruiting smokers to the SC-program. Two of three FIM were only partly active in recruiting smokers in the intervention year 2018. An intention-to-treat (ITT) approach was used in analyses. Complete case analyses and multiple imputation were used to address loss to follow-up. No difference in recruitment was found between the CAM and the FIM (p = 0.954), in adjusted analyses. In ITT analyses, FIM achieved significantly higher odds of validated abstinence from smoking at one-year follow-up (OR (95%CI): 1.63(1.1–2.4)), but not of self-reported continuous abstinence after six months than CAM. Compared with no intervention, campaigns increased the recruitment of smokers to the SC-program while financial incentives increased six months abstinence rates. In a randomised trial, no difference was demonstrated in the effect of financial incentives and campaigns to recruit smokers to a SC-program and financial incentives seemed superior to help smokers staying smoke-free for a year. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov ID: NCT03849092.
(Less)
- author
- Pisinger, Charlotta
; Toxværd, Cecilie Goltermann
and Rasmussen, Mette
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2022
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Campaigns, Community trial, Financial incentives, Randomised trial, Smoking cessation
- in
- Preventive Medicine
- volume
- 154
- article number
- 106865
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:34740676
- scopus:85119411470
- ISSN
- 0091-7435
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106865
- project
- Financial incentives versus health campaigns to quit smoking
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)
- id
- ebac97b3-483d-40c0-b3ff-eeee4d306993
- date added to LUP
- 2021-12-02 14:21:30
- date last changed
- 2024-04-20 17:02:21
@article{ebac97b3-483d-40c0-b3ff-eeee4d306993,
abstract = {{<p>The aim of this community-randomised smoking cessation (SC) trial was to investigate both recruitment and SC-rates in three municipalities offering financial incentives (FIM) to smokers who stop smoking when attending a municipal SC-program and compare these with three municipalities investing in a campaign (CAM) that should encourage smokers to use the SC-program. Furthermore, in a non-randomised matched control design we investigated whether there was a difference in recruitment and SC-rates in the three FIM and the three CAM, comparing each with three matched control municipalities (MCM). Each municipality received approx. $16,000. The FIM rewarded persons who were abstinent when attending the municipal SC-program. The CAM spent the money on a campaign recruiting smokers to the SC-program. Two of three FIM were only partly active in recruiting smokers in the intervention year 2018. An intention-to-treat (ITT) approach was used in analyses. Complete case analyses and multiple imputation were used to address loss to follow-up. No difference in recruitment was found between the CAM and the FIM (p = 0.954), in adjusted analyses. In ITT analyses, FIM achieved significantly higher odds of validated abstinence from smoking at one-year follow-up (OR (95%CI): 1.63(1.1–2.4)), but not of self-reported continuous abstinence after six months than CAM. Compared with no intervention, campaigns increased the recruitment of smokers to the SC-program while financial incentives increased six months abstinence rates. In a randomised trial, no difference was demonstrated in the effect of financial incentives and campaigns to recruit smokers to a SC-program and financial incentives seemed superior to help smokers staying smoke-free for a year. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov ID: NCT03849092.</p>}},
author = {{Pisinger, Charlotta and Toxværd, Cecilie Goltermann and Rasmussen, Mette}},
issn = {{0091-7435}},
keywords = {{Campaigns; Community trial; Financial incentives; Randomised trial; Smoking cessation}},
language = {{eng}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Preventive Medicine}},
title = {{Are financial incentives more effective than health campaigns to quit smoking? A community-randomised smoking cessation trial in Denmark}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106865}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106865}},
volume = {{154}},
year = {{2022}},
}